RE: Tell Me I'm Wrong: Porsche 911 996 GT3

[D200]

Great thread here. I have been swayed either way by posts. After reading Harris’s article I thought he has a point and is 100% correct but after reading some of the well written posts I think the gen1 could be better. Mainly due the fact it’s more subtle suspension and to me that’s more important than 30bhp or so, no point having an extra 30bhp if you can’t put it down. Gen1 looks slightly nicer and will hold it money better- that alone would be the deal clincher for a lot of people. So if buying a 996 GT3 a gen1 would probably be the [very slightly] better bet. And you could always uprate it brakes and give it a few extra bhp anyway if you wanted. I can see why a gen2 owner would say his car is better and same with a gen1 owner – but fact is they are both great cars are very similar, both being 996 GT3’s

[Paul Y]

Having owned a Mk1 a Mk2 and Gt3rs maybe I can add my 2p's worth.

The Mk1 was quite disappointing in the stoplight grand prix and slightly challenging on fast bumpy B roads. However, that did not stop me using at as my daily driver for nearly 2 years and covering the best part of 30k miles in it.

The Mk2 was much, much faster full stop. More comfortable less lively on the Banzai Backround shinanagins and generally a more rounded car. In reality a faster C2 with a stick on wing. Hated it. Drive it 6k miles in the 3 months I owned it before moving onto the RS.

Ah. The RS....My favourite modern Porsche of all time. Had all the best characteristics of the Mk1 with the speed of the Mk2. Whilst not a daily driver, covered 12k miles over 18 months including many many track days and trips to Europe. Absolutely loved it.

So, not really adding much to the argument but possibly adding another angle.

P

[jeremyc]

There's another important factor to be considered: there aren't any Zanzibar Red 996 Mark 2s.

[supersnapper]

Monkey's right - the Mk2's a better car. But you'll never love it like you would a Mk1. Simple as that

[mrdemon]

I have always wanted a GT3 and now own one.

But I never wanted a 1999 model.

To me alot is about the Engine and when you read up what Porsche did to the 996.2 Engine over the early one, it's better in every way.
Again you also have the much better brakes on the 996.2

the 1999 car is not really that fast either, but here is the rub and it was a big one, the 1999 car looks like a 12k car , as every one fitted the Aero kit to the standard C2's.
Also they are a lot older making it hard to find nice ones.
And I would put money on my Boxster Spyder out draging one easy to 100mph

The 996.2 has the better engine, looks much more special, is 5 years newer but is a lot faster. But still has all the feel and none of the PSM,PASM, PDK, electric steering stuff.


It's all well and good mk1 owners fitting all the bling to it, engine kits, brakes, Shocks etc etc but once you do that the value has been taken out of it as a collectors car as no one really wants modded cars down the line. (well not at the top money any way)

no idea what a Manthey K400 kit costs but thats all lost money come resale, and may even hurt resale.
and it's only bolt on's, the 996.2 engine is all about what Porsche did inside it and they changed every thing.

But to me the 1999 car was to slow for todays market and looked dated to get my Money.

Each to their own but I agree with Mr Harris. (and It's not becasue I own one, it's because that's the model I wanted to own because of the above reasons.)

[Mermaid]

supersnapper said:

Monkey's right - the Mk2's a better car. But you'll never love it like you would a Mk1. Simple as that

Not driven a Lotus Cortina Mk1 or Mk2, but a bit like that?

[Chris Harris]

jeremyc said:

There's another important factor to be considered: there aren't any Zanzibar Red 996 Mark 2s.

This is the most important post so far.

[jeremyc]

mrdemon said:

The 996.2 has the better engine, looks much more special, is 5 years newer but is a lot faster.

It's a maximum of five years newer; last Mk1s were built in 2001, first Mk2s in 2003 so there is a minimum age difference of only two years.

There's not a lot of difference in the performance either - three tenths to 62mph from rest and only 2mph on the top speed according to Porsche.

Anyway, as this thread clearly shows: it's horses for courses. Me, I'm happy to be able to drive either.

[jeremyc]

Chris Harris said:

jeremyc said:

There's another important factor to be considered: there aren't any Zanzibar Red 996 Mark 2s.

This is the most important post so far.

And in case you missed it, the Mk1 is already a PH Hero.

[sleep envy]

Esprit said:

The early evolutions of great cars are always the ones to go for.

Except in the case of the e30 m3.

[Slippydiff]

mrdemon said:

I have always wanted a GT3 and now own one.

And yet you placed it on the market within weeks of purchasing it ?
As such your comments count for little or nothing.

[TangoGTR]

Have not driven a 996 GT3, but have owned a 997.1 GT3 Clubsport. Amazingly capable car, that would have eventually lost me license on the road.

Now have a Caterham 7 & I have to say I enjoy it more than the porker.

Why ? Well with the GT3 it's capabilities we're so high, I found the only way to get a buzz from the car was to drive it hard. To do this on the road would mean jail inducing speeds, so really it needs the track. With the caterham being so raw, even a 60mph blast round country roads has you feeling involved with the car, ultimately giving you your driving fix

I believe as cars continue to evolve, they will always be more powerful, quicker, safer etc. But does that mean the cars are more enjoyable, or should drivers be looking to go back to basics and feel involved ?

Not sure if that helps the mk1 vs mk2 question though . Just my 2p worth

Dave

[Chris Harris]

jeremyc said:

thumbup:

And in case you missed it, the Mk1 is already a PH Hero.

Sir Fred had his Knighthood removed......

[Mermaid]

Chris Harris said:

jeremyc said:

thumbup:

And in case you missed it, the Mk1 is already a PH Hero.

Sir Fred had his Knighthood removed......

but not really. Fred was just incompetent. MK1 & Mk1, it is just preference & evolution.

[mrdemon]

Slippydiff said:

And yet you placed it on the market within weeks of purchasing it ?
As such your comments count for little or nothing.

Why not post your views on the cars. Not quote mine, it's tiring.

I always wanted a GT3 like I said, the mk2 was way out of my price band 5 years back at 50k+

But back then I went for the BMW CSL over the mk1 GT3.

The mk1 GT3 has never done much for me hence buying a mk2.

But even then they are over rated for road cars, hence putting it back up for sale,

I love my Spyder as a fun car way more than the GT3. But that factor does not stop the MK2 GT3 being a much better car than the MK1 ;-) in my eyes.

The Boxster Spyder has been the best car Porsche have made for a long long time as a true light weight drivers car.
It,s just a very limited market with that roof.

Put it this way the 918 super car has more in common with my Spyder than it does with my GT3 :-)

[Harris_I]

Chris Harris said:

Harris_I said:

For once, Chris is wrong.

The mark 2 (to my mind, "gen 2" was used by enthusiasts to differentiate the 997) has the improvements as he pointed out, but fundamentally with similar geo the cars are very similar. For anyone looking to get into a 996 GT3, buy on condition, don't worry too much about mk 1 vs mk2 (unless shaving a few tenths off your lap time is of critical importance).

Both engines are exceptionally strong. On a public track day, the driver will make more difference than the extra 21bhp. The engine was always about motorsport durability, not 0-60 times, so the comparison with the base Carrera is just for Top Trumps.

Many cars have been uprated to cope with heavy track use, so the inferior synchros and brakes discussion is becoming increasingly moot. By this stage, the original dampers will be in at best mediocre condition, so you may as well go aftermarket on those anyway.

What about the extra horsepower - far greater than the claimed 21hp? The better gearshift?

Perhaps the best way to answer is anecdotally. We ran a Porsche Club day with mark 1s and 2s (would everyone please stop saying gen 1/2!) and pro/semi-pro drivers behind the wheel on a medium to high speed circuit. It was clear that unless we were chasing qualifying times, the difference in pace was not hugely significant, certainly not material enough for a non-pro owner to justify choosing the mark 2 on horsepower alone. The only thing that clearly differentiated the two versions was that the mark 1s would have to pit earlier to cool off the brakes. That's an easy fix.

As for the gearshift, unfortunately the mark 1 I had the pleasure of thraping had a new gearbox so there was little to differentiate it from the mk 2, though perhaps as the years pass, the difference becomes more marked. That said, my own gearbox (on a mk 2) has recently been rebuilt so nothing is indestructible.

And besides both mk 1s and 2s used by enthusiasts today tend to have work done to them to ensure longevity and fitness for purpose. So as always buy on condition.

[Gary11]

Quat said:

This seems like a silly argument – surly the next generation of most cars are faster and handle better but it doesn’t make the older cars less desirable . If it did no one would buy 2.7 RS’s or 964 RS’s and I’d be able to afford one.

Exactly!
The old 911 enigma ,newer, faster, more modern should equal better but really doesnt...in reality that is.

[GT Glee]

I know the 996 series gen mark 1 cars intimately, and there really isn't much to compare on power and performance. The C2 3.4 is what I would describe as quick, and the power delivery elastic. The GT3 on the other hand is instant and aggressive, and on the street is very much akin to a bike that is able to scare and thrill at the same time.

The GT3 is a sublime drive. I adore the front-end on the Mk1. Supple and flat, giving a real sense the front tyres remain in contact to their full width.

I realise all things are relative, and perception of speed environmental, but in any circumstance I could only describe the GT3 Mk1 as a very quick car.

Chris, in your original evaluation of the GT3 Mk1 (Autocar 1999), you stated on the day that the weather was scorching hot and the surface wasn't very good. You felt these were a contributing factor as to why the times compared with the C2.. Have you managed to assess the GT3 and C2 back-to-back since?

[agtlaw]

A few years ago, i took Paul's son Harry for a few laps of the Nurburgring GP circuit in my GT3 RS. the most exciting bit of which was being behind a track/race prepared Mercedes 190 as it went too hot into, from memory the RTL curve, and straight off into the gravel trap; the rear tyres of said Mercedes chucked quite a bit of gravel on to my front end but I didn't follow him in. we finished the session without further incident and I think the same day I let Paul drive my GT3 RS on the Nordschleife as he offered to pay for the fuel. The next time I saw Paul he had recently bought his own GT3. Paul told me that when he took it home to his family and showed young Harry the immaculate cobalt blue GT3, Harry was asked what he thought of it and said, "its not an RS though is it daddy?" And that's also the thing with the GT3 mark 1, it's not an RS.

[Schnellmann]

Chris Harris said:

Sir Fred had his Knighthood removed......

Is Monkey trolling on his own thread?

In answer to another comment: I owned a gen1 GT3 and a 997.1C2S. The 997 was likely quicker but the GT3 sounded much better and felt more special and hardcore. Night and day between steering feel.